12 Nov. 2012

Wendell Cox

DemographiaLafayette College

Web-seminar

Cities & Sustainability:

A Midcourse Correction

Cairo to Madrid:

2100 Miles

Cairo to Mumbai:

2700 Miles

The Rivalry: #148

OUTLINECities in Perspective

The Evolving Urban Form

Cities & Transport

The Dimensions of Sustainability

Current Urban Planning Myths

Conclusion: Poverty not an Option

Athens

… compact development

should not automatically

be associated with the

preferred spatial growth

strategy.

CITIES IN PERSPECTIVE

Chongqing

GlobalScaling

Research

The city islike an

elephant:The bigger, the more

productive

City (Urban Organism)

Metropolitan Area or Labor Market

(Functional Expanse)

Urban Area or Agglomeration

(Physical Expanse)

PARIS

METROPOLITAN

AREA

PARIS URBAN

AREA

Exurban

Area (Rural)

Definition of Urban TermsPARIS METROPOLITAN AREA (AIRE URBAINE)

Allentown MSA & Urban Area2010

Pearl River Delta

Urban Areas

Guangzhou-Foshan

Dongguan

Shenzhen

Hong Kong

ZhongshanJiangmen

Zhuhai

Macau

Figure 10

Shanghai

Why Cities Grow: EconomicsPEOPLE MOVE THERE FOR BETTER LIVES

The raison d’être of large cities is the increasing return to scale inherent to large labor markets. The cities’ economic efficiency requires, therefore, avoiding any spatial fragmentation of labor markets.

Welwyn

ExampleAverage Work Trip Distance

(Exurban London)2x Town Diameter

Average Work Trip Length: 2001

Jobs-Housing Balance (UK)BALANCED ACHIEVED, BUT NOT IN COMMUTING

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

3565

0BC

400B

C

200B

C

100A

D

500

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

Po

pu

lati

on

(M

illio

ns)

Year: (Irregular Scale)

World’s Largest Cities (Urban Areas)650 BC TO PRESENT

Figure 13

From

Chandler

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000

GD

P/C

ap

ita

: R

ich

es

t N

ati

on

: 2

00

0$

Walking Mass

Transit

Highest National GDPs: 1500-2000650 BC TO PRESENT

AutoPRINCIPAL

MODE

Figure 14

From

Maddison

(OECD)

Mumbai: Airport East Slum

Economics: A History of PovertyCANNOT TAKE AFFLUENCE FOR GRANTED

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000

AtlantaPortland

VancouverNew York

Los AngelesParis

JakartaSeoul

ManilaHong Kong

KarachiMumbai

Dhaka

Population per Square Kilometer

Less Developed World

More Developed World

Urban Area Average Population DensitiesDHAKA & SELECTED (METRIC MEASURE)

0

250,000

500,000

750,000

1,000,000

1,250,000

1,500,000

1,750,000

2,000,000

Kowloon Walled City

1990

Dhaka-Ward 28

Hong Kong: Tsueng Wan

Centre

New York: Highest 1910

Mumbai Marine Lines

Paris 11 Arr.

Po

pu

latio

n p

er

KM

2

Neighborhood Densities: Examples(WITHIN CITIES)

Kowloon Walled City

(Hong Kong)

Nearly 5M/Square Mile

19Dhaka

Dhaka Shantytown

Up to

2M/Square Mile

THE EVOLVING URBAN FORM

Shenyang

GlobalScaling

Research

Double citysize, 15%

productivityimprovement(density not

an issue)

As CitiesBecomeLarger

They BecomeLess Dense

Coming to Terms with

Global Urban Expansion

Cairo Urban Area: Evolution1972-2010

Addis Abeba Urban Area: Evolution1972-2010

Mexico CitySpatial

Expansion:1910-2000

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Inner Core Outer Core Suburban

Pop

ulat

ion

Incr

ease

in M

illio

nsShanghai Population by Sector

CHANGE: 2000-2010

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1982 1990 2000 2010

Po

pu

lati

on

in M

illio

ns

Shenzhen Inner & Outer Area Population1982 - 2010

CORE DISTRICTS

OUTER DISTRICTS

Figure 28

Jakarta16%

Inner Suburbs

31%

Outer Suburbs &

Exurbs53%

Jakarta: Growth by Sector2000-2010

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,00019

01

1911

1921

1931

1941

1951

1961

1971

1981

1991

2001

2011

Population by District: 1901-2011MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION

OUTER MUMBAI

INNER MUMBAI

THANE

RAIGAHR

0

5

10

15

20

25

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Po

pu

lati

on

in M

illio

ns

Core & Suburban Population: 1950-2010MANILA URBAN AREA

MANILA (CORE)

SUBURBS

Inner Moscow

3%

Outer Moscow

70%

Suburban27%

Moscow Area Population Growth by Sector2002-2010

Substantial Urban Spatial

Expansion Planned

Moscow

97% 94% 93%

114%

92%

High Income World: 1960s-2000sNEARLY ALL URBAN GROWTH IN SUBURBS: 35+YEARS

Au

stra

lia

Can

ada

Un

ited

Sta

tes

Wes

tern

Eu

rop

e

Jap

an

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

200%

1950 2010

New York Urban Area ExpansionPOPULATION & URBAN LAND AREA 1950 - 2010

Population

Urban Land Area

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1954 2008

Po

pu

lati

on

in M

illio

ns

Paris Urban Area Population Growth1950 - 2010

VILLE DE PARIS

SUBURBS

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Suburban Rings 4-6 (1980-2000)Suburban Rings 1-3 (1950-1970)City

Zürich Urban Area Population GrowthCITY & SUBURBAN RINGS: 1950-2010

Source: Statistik Stadt Zürich & FSO

Pearson picture

• Chicago?

Largest Employment Center in CanadaEDGE CITY: TORONTO PEARSON AIRPORT AREA

Mexico City: Santa Fe (#3)

Sao Paulo: Luis Berrini (#3)

Addis Abeba: Bole

Curitiba and

Metropolitan Region

YEAR POPULATION

2000 2.700.000

1985 1.700.000

1975 1.140.000

1965 550.000

1955 360.000

2010 3.224.286

2020 3.758.358

Evolution of Urban GrowthThe Organic Growth of Cities

CURRENT URBAN PLANNING MYTHS

Chicago

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Historical Core Cities Suburbs

Shar

e o

f P

op

ula

tio

n G

row

thNot “Returning to the Cities”

MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS: CORE & SUBURBAN

Net Core to Suburb

Domestic Migration

Continued 2010-2011

1990-

20002000-

2010

206,000

-272,000

1,105,000

3,473,000 2,989,000

8,566,000

-1,000,000

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

9,000,000

Po

pu

lati

on

Gro

wth

No Move from Suburbs to CoreUS MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS: 2000-2010

Data from

Census Bureau

-20.0%

-15.0%

-10.0%

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

Historic Core Cities Suburbs

Ch

ange

in P

op

ula

tio

n: 2

00

0-2

01

0Younger Not Moving to Cities

MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS: CORE & SUBURBAN

35-44 Population in 2010

Compared to 25-34 in 2000

Source: US Census Data

-14.0%

-12.0%

-10.0%

-8.0%

-6.0%

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

Historic Core Cities Suburbs Other

Ch

ange

in P

op

ula

tio

n: 2

00

0-2

01

0Age 55-64 Not Moving to Cities

MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS: CORE & SUBURBAN

55-64 Population in 2010

Compared to 65-74 in 2000

Source: US Census Data

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Detached: Conventional Lot Detached: Small Lot Multi-Family

Shar

e o

f th

e M

arke

t

Supply

Modeled Demand: 2010: Nelson

Actual Demand 2000-2008: Cox

SCAG, ABAG,

SANDAG & SACOG

Planning Areas

Housing Preferences: Not ChangingCALIFORNIA (2000s)

66.9%

17.4%

5.4% 6.7%2.2% 1.4%

69.7%

12.6%

5.8% 6.8%2.6% 2.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Drive Alone Car Pool Transit Walk Other Work at Home

Shar

e o

f th

e M

arke

t

From 2000 CTPP

& 2011 ACS

Driving Down:16-25: But Not to WorkUNITED STATES: 2000 & 2011

CITIES & TRANSPORT

Dubai

Democratization of ProsperityASSOCIATION BETWEEN MOBILITY & AFFLUENCE

Chicago

Reduced MinorityUnemployment

With CarsU. of California

PRUD’HOMMEMobility Improves

ProductivityU. Of Paris

HARTGEN-FIELDSMobility Improves

Productivity

“Time is

Money”

Toronto

Why are all these people in cars?

Downtown16%

Elsewhere84%

Transit: Strong Downtown: Weak Elsewhere6 CSA’S WITH STRONGEST DOWNTOWNS: 2000

Downtown57%

Elsewhere43%

EMPLOYMENT # OF TRANSIT COMMUTERS

All Major CSA’s

Downtown

Employment

10%

90.3%

8.1%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Public Transport within Walking Distance

45 Minute Job Access

Public Transport: 7 US Largest MarketsACCESS TO TRANSIT STOPS/ACCESS TO JOBS

NY, CHI, LA, WDC,

SF, BOS, PHI

Average work trip travel time:

Car alone: 24.0 minutes

Public transport: 47.4 minutes

TRANSIT AUTO

Transit & Auto Access: 30 MinutesFROM CENTRAL VANCOUVER

16%

84%

59%

41%

JobsAccessible

NotAccessible

JobsAccessible

NotAccessible

AutoTransit

Paris

Paris Suburbs: Cars Provide Quicker TravelFROM MAJOR SUBURBAN RAIL STATIONS: 1 HR TO JOBS

3027

44

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

All Car Transit

On

e W

ay W

ork

Tri

p M

inu

tes

Travel by Transit Takes Longer6 MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS: CANADA

Autos in Western Europe & North AmericaMAJORITY OF MOTORIZED TRAVEL IS AUTO IN ALL CITIES

ExamplePORTLAND

Transit +Cycle+WalkMarket Share Down

9% 1980-2011

Transit’s “Last Kilometer” ProblemELSEWHERE TRANSIT IS SLOWER FOR MORE TRIPS

Annual Cost:

More than gross

annual income of

metropolitan area

An auto competitive

system for Portland?

½ Mile Metro

Grid Required

R² = 0.885

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Vehicle Hours/KM2.

Population/ KM2

Hong Kong

Higher Density Means More Traffic CongestionDENSITY & TRAFFIC VOLUMES: INTERNATIONAL

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Average Urban Density Traffic Congestion (Excess Travel Time)

Inde

x Density & Traffic CongestionUNITED STATES, CANADA & EUROPE

USA

Canada

Europe

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Walk Cycle Auto: Australia Auto: Canada Auto: United States

Acc

ess

in S

quar

e M

iles

30-Minute Access by ModeCAR, CYCLING AND WALKING

1. POVERTY ALLEVIATION

Does the strategy contribute to poverty alleviation?

2. COST EFFECTIVE SUSTAINABILITY

Can the strategy reduce GHG emissions at a cost within

the $50 ceiling per ton?

3. ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY

Is the strategy without serious potential for reducing

economic growth or increasing poverty?

4. POLITICAL SUSTAINABILITY (ACCEPTABILITY)

Is the strategy without serious potential for public

rejection or evasion?

5. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

Does the strategy have the potential to achieve the GHG

emission reduction objective?

THE DIMENSIONS OFSUSTAINABILITY

POVERTY ALLEVIATION

Rio +20 Declaration

Eradicating poverty is the greatest

global challenge facing the world

today and an indispensable

requirement for sustainable development.

COST EFFECTIVESUSTAINABILITY

Not an Issue of Fair Share

The most cost effective means

Must be used regardless of sector

Shenyang,

China

Cost Effectiveness is CrucialUN IPCC MAXIMUM RANGE PER METRIC TON

Market

Less than

$15

McKinsey

Average

$17

Above $50 is wasteful

Detracts from efforts to reduce GHGs

& unnecessarily reduces

employment & economic growth

Co-sponsors included:

NRDC, EDF, Shell

McKinsey & Conference BoardNO RADICAL LIFESTYLE CHANGES NEEDED

…no change in thermostat

settings or appliance use,

no downsizing of vehicles,

home or commercial

space and traveling the same mileage

…no shift to denser housing

ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100

Bill

ion

s

World Population: 1950-2100BY INCOME: ACTUAL AND PROJECTED

More Developed World

Goal:

All should live as

well as in the West

POLITICAL SUSTAINABILITY(ACCEPTABILITY)

Rajendra K. Pachauri, Chair, IPCC

Can you imagine 400 million people who do

not have a light bulb in their homes?" … You

cannot, in a democracy, ignore some of these

realities and as it happens with the resources

of coal that India has, we really don't have

any choice but to use coal.

First world

Europe: Protests Against AusterityATHENS: 18 OCTOBER 2012

Protests Against Raising Retirement AgeFRANCE: 18 OCTOBER 2012

# 5: ENVIRONMENTALSUSTAINABILITY

Cannot be achieved without 1-41. POVERTY ALLEVIATION

Does the strategy contribute to poverty alleviation?

2. COST EFFECTIVE SUSTAINABILITY

Can the strategy reduce GHG emissions at a cost within

the $50 ceiling per ton?

3. ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY

Is the strategy without serious potential for reducing

economic growth or increasing poverty?

4. POLITICAL SUSTAINABILITY (ACCEPTABILITY)

Is the strategy without serious potential for public

rejection or evasion?

5. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

Does the strategy have the potential to achieve the GHG

emission reduction objective?

Planning

Realities

Seoul

Reducing VMT: Diminishing ReturnsSLOWER SPEEDS, CONTESTION RAISE GHGS/VMT

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

9+ Floors 4-8 Floors <4 Floors Townhouse Detached

Multi-Unit

Single Family

Source: Energy Australia Study

Annual GHG Tons/Capita

Density: GHG’s May Not be LowerINCLUDING COMMON ENERGY EMISSIONS

No US dataHUGE RESEARCH GAP

Sydney

Suburban Toronto (Newmarket)

Statistics Canada:

High Density 6+ Miles

From DowntownRelies on Cars

Higher Suburban Density: Travel the SameTRAVEL PATTERNS NO DIFFERENT THAN LOW DENSITY

100%95%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Population Density Travel per Household

Ch

ange

Densification and TravelUS RESEARCH

Per Ewing & Cervero (2010)

How Compact City

Policy Destroys

Housing Affordability

Anthony Downs

(Brookings Institution

Economist)

Principle of

a

Competitive

Land Supply

St. Louis

LAND PRICES….

….that in the absence

of ample and

accessible land for

expansion on the urban

periphery, artificial

shortages of residential

land will quickly

extinguish any hope

that housing will

remain

affordable, especially

for the urban poor..."

Land Rationing is the IssueDESTROYS HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

Donald Brash, Governor,

Reserve Bank of New Zealand

1988-2002

Introduction to

4th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey

... the affordability of housing

is overwhelmingly a function

of just one thing, the extent

to which governments place

artificial restrictions on the

supply of residential land.

Historic Median Multiple: 3.0 or Less

Median House Price/Median Household Income

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1950 1960 1970 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Me

dia

n M

ult

iple

Less Restrictive Markets

More Restrictive Markets: Outside California

More Restrictive Markets: California

1950 – 1970: From Census Bureau

1980-2009: From Harvard University

2010: From Demographia

Annual Data Begins at 1980

Housing Affordability 1950-2011MAJOR US METROPOLITAN AREAS: MEDIAN MULTIPLE

Median Multiple: Median House Price divided by Median Household Income

London

Reduced employment

in Amsterdam/Rotterdam-Vermuelen & Ommeren

Netherlands Bureau of Econ. Rsch.

Strong Land Regulation: Less GrowthEUROPEAN & US RESEARCH

Higher unemployment

in the UK-Mayo & Angel

World Bank

20% less job growth

than expected in

metropolitan areas

with strongest

land use regulation-Raven Saks

US Federal Reserve Board

AGRICULTURE

even with urban

expansion, there are

"adequate reserves

of cultivatable land

sufficient to feed the

planet in perpetuity”

http://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/data/nBackIssue20080617_01.html

Zero Emission House: Japan2,100 SQUARE FEET: DETACHED

CONCLUSION

Kolkata

Manila

POVERTY IS NOT

AN OPTION

Shanghai

Why Cities Grow: EconomicsPEOPLE MOVE THERE FOR BETTER LIVES

The raison d’être of large cities is the increasing return

to scale inherent to large labor markets. The cities’

Economic efficiency requires, therefore, avoiding

any spatial fragmentation of labor markets.

A well governed city

delivers:

Economic growth

(mobility facilitates)

Higher discretionary

incomes (housing

affordability)

Shenzhen

Toronto Dallas-Ft. Worth

Toronto/ DFW

Population (Population

Centre/Urban Area) 5,132,794 5,121,892 0.2%

Land Area (KM2) 1,751 4,606 -62.0%

Density 2,931 1,112 163.6%

One Way Work Trip (Min.) 33 26 26.9%

Reach Work in 30

Minutes 48% 59% -18.6%

Median Multiple (House

Price/Household Income) 5.5 2.9 89.7%

Transit Work Trip Share 21% 2% 935.0%

Comparing Toronto & Dallas-Fort WorthURBAN AREAS COMPARED (2010 & 2011)

The PlanPeople

Rail Station: Suburban Paris

Planning: Facilitating the

How People Want to Live